Popcorn Johnny:So it's not legal for a 15 year old to consent to sex, but it's just fine if she buys a morning after pill without parental permission? Not really understanding the logic behind that decision.

That is because you are equating cause and effect. This is not rational. Please change the batteries in your logic centeral processer.

GoldSpider:So you're OK with obligating an unwilling father to pay for 18 years of child support. Understood.

I'm not. I think that in order to afford a woman the absolute right to control her own body, which is essential, and her own life, a man must be afforded the same freedom and rights and if a man wants to walk away, if a man would have aborted the fetus if it were his body, and does not want to be a parent, he should be able to walk away. The woman who makes her choice on her own should have to deal with it on her own, and not by obligating someone else to come along for 18 years if he doesn't want to.

It really is the only fair way. In no way can I be okay with compelling a woman to abort, nor to carry a pregnancy to term, as it's her body. But compelling a man to support a child he did not want is also wrong. There's really no way to do anything about the man who would want the child when the woman doesn't, but there is at least a way to allow a man to walk away in the way that a woman can choose to abort.

Oh okay, so it's up to the government to raise our kids. Thanks for giving me the official Fark position.

No, it's up to you to raise your kids. There are certain things society won't permit you to do to the kids unilaterally, and interfering with their reproductive choices is one of them. No different from animal cruelty laws, really.

Oh okay, so it's up to the government to raise our kids. Thanks for giving me the official Fark position.

And thanks for educating us! Today I Learned that "parents should always know if their kids are accessing reproductive health services" is a new smokescreen for shaming women about their sexual awareness. Slut-shaming not working? Why not start hitting them even younger? Won't someone think of the children?

Popcorn Johnny:make me some tea: How is it people do not understand the concept of consent?

A 15 year old can't legally consent to sex in almost the entire country.

There is so much wrong with this simple sentence I am not sure where to begin.

OK, how about for starters:

* The FDA is a Federal organization; individual state laws don't really come into play. Pretty sure a state can still say "no" if they want (they just can't say "yes" if the FDA says "no"). I could be wrong on this latter sentence, but the former holds.

* A married 15-year-old can legally have as much sex as he or she wishes.

* A metric shiatload (~2.287 imperial shiatloads) of states do indeed have the AoC at 16; however, the vast majority of these states also have a "safe range" where such sex is not a crime. For instance, in Texas

The Texas Penal Code states that "It is an affirmative defense to the prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that:

• The actor cannot be more than 3 years older than the victim.• The victim was older than 14 years of age at the time the offense occurred.....

That's just one. Most states have some form of Age Gap provision. Even in states where it is illegal, most will probably not prosecute.

serpent_sky:I'm not. I think that in order to afford a woman the absolute right to control her own body, which is essential, and her own life, a man must be afforded the same freedom and rights and if a man wants to walk away, if a man would have aborted the fetus if it were his body, and does not want to be a parent, he should be able to walk away. The woman who makes her choice on her own should have to deal with it on her own, and not by obligating someone else to come along for 18 years if he doesn't want to.

It really is the only fair way. In no way can I be okay with compelling a woman to abort, nor to carry a pregnancy to term, as it's her body. But compelling a man to support a child he did not want is also wrong. There's really no way to do anything about the man who would want the child when the woman doesn't, but there is at least a way to allow a man to walk away in the way that a woman can choose to abort.

Except that, in reality, Society realized that it had a major problem with starving orphans and pregnant women who have been shunted and jilted, and men going around leaving their bastard crotch droppings all over the United States' four corners without taking any responsibility for it.

Dusk-You-n-Me:teenage mutant ninja rapist: But still a woman has the choice to never become pregant if she wishes

And the man has the same exact choice on whether or not to consent to sex. See how that works? AGAIN? I don't know how many times I have to go over this, then you retreat just a bit, then come right back with the same bullsh*t.

teenage mutant ninja rapist: men have condoms. Crap shoot at best.

Yes men are the real victim here.

Jesus christ with you guys.

Bah. Nice try girly. Women are proffesional victims.I pointed out a double standard. If genders were reversed you would be up in arms.

just saying. Care for your hypocrisy before you challenge anyone elses

Karac:Rincewind53: Popcorn Johnny: That said, I don't agree with girls under the age of consent being able to purchase this without their parents knowledge. Maybe it should be that they don't need parental permission, but the parents are notified of the purchase after the fact.

Why? The only other analogy out there are states that require parental notice to get an abortion. Do you think Plan B is an abortifacient? It's not. It's emergency contraceptive, it prevents pregnancy from occuring, it doesn't terminate an already-existing pregnancy.

Do you think parents should be notified when their children buy condoms?

Don't go giving him ideas.

Really - don't. If he's anything like a standard-model conservative his brain's already at capacity. Shoving something new in one ear only causes something else they used to know to leak out the other.

Yeah, remember when the standard-model conservative took that wine-making course and forgot how to drive?

teenage mutant ninja rapist:Dusk-You-n-Me: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Just becuase the woman gestates doesnt make her opinion more valid or worth more than a mans.

It's not about opinions, it's about decisions. And the decision to keep or abort a baby is solely the woman's. That's all I've been saying this entire time.

GoldSpider: Except legally they aren't a separate issue, not while laws are in place that automatically obligate an unwilling father to pay child support.

The only choice a man gets is whether or not to consent to sex. The woman gets the same choice. After they've both decided yes, what to do with a pregnancy is solely the woman's decision. That rubs a lot of men the wrong way because hey that's not equal! You know what else isn't equal? HOW BABIES ARE MADE. Women get pregnant, they get to make the decision that follows. That is, AGAIN, all I've been saying this whole time.

If a woman loves and cares for the man she is with than it is not her choice. It is a joint choice. Ultimatley falling on her yes. But still a woman has the choice to never become pregant if she wishes. Condoms tubes tied. IUDs depovera? The pill.

men have condoms. Crap shoot at best. So our opinion matters just as much

Thisbymaster:Murder and Rape is gonna happen. it's nature. See how that doesn't work?

You're not making the clever point you think you're making. When we say "sex is going to happen" it's not throwing up our hands and walking away. It's acknowledging that there's a problem and taking steps to reduce the risk and consequences for our children and our society.

Murder and rape are going to happen. We don't just tell our kids "don't murder!" and think the problem will go away. We (families and society) teach our kids that violence is wrong. We punish violent actions. We do whatever we can to make sure murder and rape are as rare as possible.

Same with sex. Kids are going to have it. You can tell your kids "just say no!" and think the problem will go away. Or you can educate them on the risks and responsibilities, so what when they have sex (maybe now, maybe in 2 years, maybe in 5 years), the chances of STDs or unwanted pregnancy will be as low as possible.

hardinparamedic:So if you chose to do both of these, what makes you think you have the right to force that woman to abort a child concieved out of conscious and consensual choice?

You don't have a clue what I believe, so I'll thank you not to presume to speak in my behalf.

serpent_sky:In no way can I be okay with compelling a woman to abort, nor to carry a pregnancy to term, as it's her body. But compelling a man to support a child he did not want is also wrong.

Here's what I propose. Up to some point during the pregnancy (second trimester? I'm not entirely certain if there is a cutoff point after which an abortion is unsafe), an unwilling father may "opt out" of paying child support (and surrender any custody rights). At that point, the prospective mother can choose either way to either abort or have the child, having been informed well ahead of time that the father will not help raise it.

GoldSpider:So can she, but telling a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant to keep her legs closed is considered culturally regressive anymore.

Oh boo hoo. People can have sex and not get pregnant. I know the thought of not being able to control the life of another person both terrifies and fills you with anger, but it is what it is.

That's what this really boils down to. Wanting to enforce your control and semblance of morality onto others.

The fact of the matter is, as a man, you made the conscious decision to penetrate her. You made the decision not to wear a condom and not use spermicide. You made the decision to vigorously thrust yourself for four or five seconds until you reached climax, and then you made the decision to ejaculate inside of her.

So tell me again how you didn't have a choice in the matter?

Hint: Babies don't come from the ass, mouth, or any other anatomical part you have a fetish for, buddy.

BarkingUnicorn:Why do men get only one chance to avoid parenthood and women get at least three (abstinence, abortion, adoption)?

Because our society has deemed it unacceptable that a man can force a woman to undergo an invasive and physically and emotionally taxing procedure against her will.

serpent_sky:GoldSpider: So you're OK with obligating an unwilling father to pay for 18 years of child support. Understood.

I'm not. I think that in order to afford a woman the absolute right to control her own body, which is essential, and her own life, a man must be afforded the same freedom and rights and if a man wants to walk away, if a man would have aborted the fetus if it were his body, and does not want to be a parent, he should be able to walk away. The woman who makes her choice on her own should have to deal with it on her own, and not by obligating someone else to come along for 18 years if he doesn't want to.

It really is the only fair way. In no way can I be okay with compelling a woman to abort, nor to carry a pregnancy to term, as it's her body. But compelling a man to support a child he did not want is also wrong. There's really no way to do anything about the man who would want the child when the woman doesn't, but there is at least a way to allow a man to walk away in the way that a woman can choose to abort.

Man why cant more women think like this.common sense is the best approach to anything.liberalismconservatism.why cant the world as a whole embrace.pragmatism?

Oh okay, so it's up to the government to raise our kids. Thanks for giving me the official Fark position.

You've spent half the thread begging and whining for it to do exactly that- to take on the responsibility of monitoring whether the child makes an OTC purchase. That's what parental notification ultimately amounts to, after all: "Keep tabs on this kid for me, and report back what you find out."

hardinparamedic:GoldSpider: So can she, but telling a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant to keep her legs closed is considered culturally regressive anymore.

Oh boo hoo. People can have sex and not get pregnant. I know the thought of not being able to control the life of another person both terrifies and fills you with anger, but it is what it is.

That's what this really boils down to. Wanting to enforce your control and semblance of morality onto others.

The fact of the matter is, as a man, you made the conscious decision to penetrate her. You made the decision not to wear a condom and not use spermicide. You made the decision to vigorously thrust yourself for four or five seconds until you reached climax, and then you made the decision to ejaculate inside of her.

So tell me again how you didn't have a choice in the matter?

Hint: Babies don't come from the ass, mouth, or any other anatomical part you have a fetish for, buddy.

BarkingUnicorn: Why do men get only one chance to avoid parenthood and women get at least three (abstinence, abortion, adoption)?

Because our society has deemed it unacceptable that a man can force a woman to undergo an invasive and physically and emotionally taxing procedure against her will.

I'm a guy and it does feel 'wrong' that I can make a mistake and pay for it for the next 18 years of my life.

But, the alternative is to lay hold of a woman's body and tell her that she can't do what she wants with it. And that feels worse to me. Mostly because I'd be horrified if someone tried to force me into a similar situation.

Presumable you are religious, and thus believe in the divine, which means you probably believe your god is omniscient, which means god knows everything, which means he knows what babies are going to get chopped into pieces, and thus wouldn't put his little jesus in a person who would abort it.

Give your YHWH some farking credit. Stop believing in Him, while simultaneously believing he is clueless and helpless. Is he powerful, all knowing, all seeing, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?

GoldSpider:Here's what I propose. Up to some point during the pregnancy (second trimester? I'm not entirely certain if there is a cutoff point after which an abortion is unsafe), an unwilling father may "opt out" of paying child support (and surrender any custody rights). At that point, the prospective mother can choose either way to either abort or have the child, having been informed well ahead of time that the father will not help raise it.

TomD9938:ryant123: TomD9938: ryant123: TomD9938: ryant123: If girls have sex, parents shouldn't be allowed to force them to compromise their health by going through an unwanted pregnancy, or to have their vaginas ripped apart in childbirth against their will.

And if my 15 year old wants to keep the baby? Can I compel her to abort, seeing as I'd be the one raising another child?

Wait, it's against the law for you not to raise your child's kid?

I'm asking if the choice is mine (since she's in my custody) as to whether the birth happens.

Uh...no? Is that the obvious answer you were looking for?

Do you know this for a fact? I genuinely don't know where the law is on this.

An abortion is just a medical procedure, that in this hypothetical, I have deemed necessary for my minor child.

Seems a simple matter of choice.

If your daughter disagrees, then what probably what matters is if it really is necessary, not whether you "deem" it so. I'm sure laws on this vary from place to place. The fact of the matter is that what you "deem" isn't really determinative of anything, and also that it shouldn't be.

Chameleon:GoldSpider: Here's what I propose. Up to some point during the pregnancy (second trimester? I'm not entirely certain if there is a cutoff point after which an abortion is unsafe), an unwilling father may "opt out" of paying child support (and surrender any custody rights). At that point, the prospective mother can choose either way to either abort or have the child, having been informed well ahead of time that the father will not help raise it.

[imokaywiththis.jpg]

Except that child support exists in the interest of the child, so it would be pretty silly to just randomly start including exceptions like this.

A lot of pissed off would-be deadbeat dads in this thread. Moral of the story: don't fark anyone you either a) wouldn't be willing to have a kid with or b) couldn't convince to morning after/abort if necessary. I know it's so passé in this day and age to accept there are consequences for your actions but sadly real life isn't a ke$ha song.

hardinparamedic:Because our society has deemed it unacceptable that a man can force a woman to undergo an invasive and physically and emotionally taxing procedure against her will.

This is the correct decision, and I doubt many are arguing against it.

But it raises the question - why is it then acceptable for the women (by nature of her decision to keep the child) to force a man to pay 18 years of child support (depending on the man's circumstances, physically and emotionally taxing) against his will?